by Sue Widemark
The Associated Press Headline reads "Study may link milk and cancer" but in the first paragraph, they state that the researcher said the study was no reason for men to stop drinking milk.
The so called link was found in a 20 year old survey study attempting to establish a link between taking aspirin and less heart attack. June Chan, an epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health found that between 1982 and 1984, of 20,885 male doctors questioned about their eating habits, including their consumption of skim milk, whole milk, cheese and ice cream, 904 of them developed prostate cancer within the next ten years. Cooking the books some more, Chan and associates found that men who said they consumed 2.5 servings of milk, ice cream and cheese were about 30 percent more prone to get prostate cancer than those who consumed less. Dr Chan presented the results of this study on Tuesday in San Francisco at a meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research.
We can only wonder (and HOPE) that some of those scientists presented at the meeting could see the flaws in this study because if I, as a lay person can see it, it's pretty obvious!
One scientist, Donald Coffey of Johns Hopkins University whom Associated Press billed as a 'prostate cancer expert' seemed to think that although it's a weak correlation, "there is some scientific reason to believe it."
He went on to explain that Calcium in the body lowers Vitamin D levels and Vitamin D can protect against prostate cancer.
Of course, Calcium lowers Vitamin D levels because one of Vitamin D's most important functions in our body is to help us digest Calcium! That's why milk is combined with Vitamin D. Vitamin D is easily replenished, by the way, by 15 minutes of sun!
I am truly astounded that a scientist can take the results of a 20 year old survey study and 'prove' anything beyond what the study intended to prove (link aspirin with less heart attacks) and even what the study intended to 'prove' is outdated by now!
First of all, although it has been previously thought that a diet high in fat content was a risk factor in cancer, the thinking now is that the link between fat and cancer seems to basically exist in what we know as "transfat", a synthetic type of fatty acid used in fried foods, fast foods and junk foods, which is not well digested by the body but unfortunately, can get into the cells on the same pathways as REAL fatty acids, clogging the mitochondria etc. Trans fatty acids can also help form a deadly type of cholesterol which embeds in the arterial and venal walls, compromising them and raising the risk of heart attack and stroke etc. Trans fatty acids have been identified as "cancer activators". The type of fat which is in milk is animal fat and no direct link has been established between this type of fatty acid and cancer.
Secondly, this study seems to not consider the more known risk factors for prostate cancer, including vasectomy and use of "agent orange" and/or what is known as "wartime environmental risks" as well as smoking, sedentary lifestyle and more.
Thirdly, epidemiological studies like these while producing impressive numbers (because they are not using specifically collected data but a pool of data already 'out there'), are known for being very inaccurate, often coming to some rather erroneous conclusions.
The most recent example of this was the repeated epidemiological studies "proving" that estrogen 'protected' against heart disease and did not cause breast cancer. Yet, in year 2001, the HERS study, a government study on estrogen in the safest combination (or what was felt to be the safest combination) was halted midway through the study, due to the group taking estrogen having too many adverse side effects including breast cancer, heart attack, thrombosis and stroke (all of which, by the way, were listed as side effects of the drug in the Merck Manual for years!) Moreover more recent studies have shown a HIGHER risk of heart attack in those taking HRT. So much for epidemiological studies.
I'm wondering, are any scientists really taking these studies seriously? Studies which are so flawed that I, with a layman's knowledge can see it? A scary thought.
"But who needs data when you can spoon-feed junk science to a gullible
media?"
- Steven Milloy, Fox News
Source: Associated Press